According to this piece from National Review, men are the worst.
It's a rare satire that manages to keep getting better once you've gotten the joke, but this is a good piece.
12 comments:
Cass
said...
I've often wished there were some way to gather up whiny radical feminists and whiny MRA/PUA and lock them in a room together.
Toss in a little lighter fluid and a match, and the world would instantly become a better place.
Oh wait. That's so hate-speech-y of me.
All this axe-to-grind activism is just so maddeningly stupid. I read a line the other day (link from conservative blogger) to a post that seriously asserted something to this effect (I've cleaned up the language considerably):
"A woman who has slept with 50 men is a worthless slut that no man in his right mind would soil himself by associating with (except as a quick shag). But a man who has slept with 50 women only becomes more attractive to women - his value increases."
Several days later, I am still literally stunned by the idiocy. And these twits wonder why they can't find any decent women?
I'm struggling to think of a single woman with even a smidgeon of intelligence or character who would find it sexy to know that her future husband has slept with 50 women? I could see - in a rare case - deciding to look past that, but can't even imagine it being a value-add.
Jeez, Louise. The human propensity for delusional thinking never ceases to amaze and entertain.
The funny thing is that the guy who sent me the link to this is a good friend -- a regular comrade in both philosophy and backpacking -- who posts things to my Facebook wall all the time. But this piece he sent as a private message, so none of the women in his life would know he thought it was funny. :)
I sent it to my liberal, feminist DIL (the philosophy prof) and she thought it was hilarious.
I thought it was extremely well done. Sent the link to a few friends and one of them said he'd seen it this morning and thought, "Huh... did Cass change her pen name???" :p
I sent it to my liberal, feminist DIL (the philosophy prof) and she thought it was hilarious.
Which just goes to show ya that some feminists *can* take a joke and they're not all like the most extreme ones any more than all Rethugs are David Duke or [insert favorite right-leaning loudmouth-du-jour here]
It occurred to me whilst typing this that trying to point out the idiocy of stereotyping and painting with the broad brush by stereotyping and painting with a broad brush is one o' them self-defecating debate tactics.
A lot of what I've objected to in Internet discourse (read: debates where the parties aren't face to face, and thus say and do things that IRL would earn them a punch right on the nose) is that so many folks want to attribute things to their opponents that they've neither said nor done, and then complain about what they just made up.
Or, more frequently, they want to lump an entire group into one basket - defined by the most unreasonable person in the group - and then complain like mad if the same is done to them.
It's a fair point, and one doesn't have to sacrifice one's sense of humor to appreciate it. In fact, I find the whole phenomenon rather funny.
FWIW, I always thought that joke was kind of dumb. Most people can take a joke if it's not malicious or too pointedly aimed at them. I haven't noticed anyone, on either side, being all that able to laugh at jokes intended to make them look stupid or unreasonable.
I spent years writing about the lunacies of rad-feminism, but I do draw the line at the very same broad brush characatures we complain about when they're aimed at us.
12 comments:
I've often wished there were some way to gather up whiny radical feminists and whiny MRA/PUA and lock them in a room together.
Toss in a little lighter fluid and a match, and the world would instantly become a better place.
Oh wait. That's so hate-speech-y of me.
All this axe-to-grind activism is just so maddeningly stupid. I read a line the other day (link from conservative blogger) to a post that seriously asserted something to this effect (I've cleaned up the language considerably):
"A woman who has slept with 50 men is a worthless slut that no man in his right mind would soil himself by associating with (except as a quick shag). But a man who has slept with 50 women only becomes more attractive to women - his value increases."
Several days later, I am still literally stunned by the idiocy. And these twits wonder why they can't find any decent women?
I'm struggling to think of a single woman with even a smidgeon of intelligence or character who would find it sexy to know that her future husband has slept with 50 women? I could see - in a rare case - deciding to look past that, but can't even imagine it being a value-add.
Jeez, Louise. The human propensity for delusional thinking never ceases to amaze and entertain.
The funny thing is that the guy who sent me the link to this is a good friend -- a regular comrade in both philosophy and backpacking -- who posts things to my Facebook wall all the time. But this piece he sent as a private message, so none of the women in his life would know he thought it was funny. :)
I asked him, "Are you mensoring yourself?" And he had to laugh and admit that he was.
I sent it to my liberal, feminist DIL (the philosophy prof) and she thought it was hilarious.
I thought it was extremely well done. Sent the link to a few friends and one of them said he'd seen it this morning and thought, "Huh... did Cass change her pen name???" :p
I sent it to my liberal, feminist DIL (the philosophy prof) and she thought it was hilarious.
Which just goes to show ya that some feminists *can* take a joke and they're not all like the most extreme ones any more than all Rethugs are David Duke or [insert favorite right-leaning loudmouth-du-jour here]
It occurred to me whilst typing this that trying to point out the idiocy of stereotyping and painting with the broad brush by stereotyping and painting with a broad brush is one o' them self-defecating debate tactics.
What would we do without the Internet?
Which just goes to show ya that some feminists *can* take a joke and they're not all like the most extreme ones...
If I wanted to pull your pigtails, I'd rephrase that as:
"You know that joke about how feminists don't find anything funny? IT'S NOT FUNNY!"
:)
And that might work, had I reacted that way :p
A lot of what I've objected to in Internet discourse (read: debates where the parties aren't face to face, and thus say and do things that IRL would earn them a punch right on the nose) is that so many folks want to attribute things to their opponents that they've neither said nor done, and then complain about what they just made up.
Or, more frequently, they want to lump an entire group into one basket - defined by the most unreasonable person in the group - and then complain like mad if the same is done to them.
It's a fair point, and one doesn't have to sacrifice one's sense of humor to appreciate it. In fact, I find the whole phenomenon rather funny.
FWIW, I always thought that joke was kind of dumb. Most people can take a joke if it's not malicious or too pointedly aimed at them. I haven't noticed anyone, on either side, being all that able to laugh at jokes intended to make them look stupid or unreasonable.
I spent years writing about the lunacies of rad-feminism, but I do draw the line at the very same broad brush characatures we complain about when they're aimed at us.
...things that IRL would earn them a punch right on the nose...
Well, you know how I feel about that. We had 104 comments on that topic just the other day. :)
Yay, punching in the nose!
Yay, punching in the nose!
Heh :)
Nose bopping FTW.
Though lighter fluid works for me too.
How incendiary of you, Cass!
Post a Comment